As a lovely counterpoint to this tirade about the "fat" industry and whether it has any basis, Michael Moore posted on Facebook about the walks he has been going on for the last 42 weeks. I won't post the whole thing and can't figure out how to post a link, but if you look for Michael Moore and find a post from Monday, December 31, you'll get there. Here is a short excerpt:

"...Remember, one of the main tenets of capitalism is to have the consumer filled with fear, insecurity, envy and unhappiness so that we can spend, spend, spend our way out of it and, dammit, just feel better for a little while. But we don't, do we? The path to happiness - and deep down, we all know this -- is created by love, and being kind to oneself, sharing a sense of community with others, becoming a participant instead of a spectator, and being in motion. Moving. Moving around all day. Lifting things, even if it's yourself. Going for a walk every day ..."

ThyPeace, walked today, and feels pretty good about that and the delicious supper of rice, lentils, yogurt, and apple butter (we're out of chutney...) she had.

I saw something on this quite a long time ago - years in fact. It was noticed that people who were slightly overweight had better outcomes when subjected to severe disease than skinny people. It was thought, but not proven, that it was due to having greater physical reserves to draw on in time of sickness. Sounds reasonable to me.

It was thought, but not proven, that it was due to having greater physical reserves to draw on in time of sickness. Sounds reasonable to me.

Except....

I fancy that this article is another example of "Science By Press Release" and that, if you Google the title, you'll find umpteen similar "takes" on the same press release. I see this is a NYT article dated Jan 2nd......a Tuesday, right?? The NYT Tuesday *science* section is full of not-quite-accurate articles such as this one on pretty much every topic that's included there.

One of the things with statistical analyses that lead to sensational headlines such as this is that the mortality stats can get heavily skewed by the folk who are underweight because of the illness that killed them. For instance, a figure that the author quoted was males of 5'10" and a weight between 129-174 lbs having a higher "mortality risk" than the same height and a weight of 175-243lbs (a 5'4' woman between 104 and 145 lbs was categorised in a similar risky fashion) The lower limit of "lightweight" in this example is really low as compared with the upper limit of "heavier".

This article is a long way from validating obesity as a strategy for long term health. I see that the author is a professor of law at the Univ. Colorado and with a book about the Obesity *myth* no less. Fine credentials for spinning a convincing tale on a topic but not necessarily someone who's going to give you a decent analysis on bodyweight, health and wellbeing.

One of the experts who takes issue with Flegal's conclusions is epidemiologist Walter Willett of the Harvard School of Public Health. He's read her new paper and says he's not buying it.

"This study is really a pile of rubbish and no one should waste their time reading it," he says.

Willett says it's not helpful to look simply at how body mass indexes, or BMIs, influence the risk of premature death, as this paper did. without knowing something about people's health or fitness. Some people are thin because they're ill, so of course they're at higher risk of dying. The study doesn't tease this apart.

Also, he says the analysis doesn't address the bigger, more important issues of quality of life. If an overweight person does live longer — is he or she living with chronic diseases?

"We have a huge amount of other literature showing that people who gain weight or are overweight, have increased risk of diabetes, heart disease, stroke, many cancers and many other conditions," Willett says.

For those of you who want to know whether your body weight is a problem, Willett says rather than comparing your BMI to those around you, think about what you weighed when you were 20 years old.

"For most people, our ideal weight, if we weren't seriously overweight at age 20, is about what we weighed then," Willett says. That's why weight change is a good number to keep an eye on. It can be an early warning sign that you're on the path to more weight gain.

"This study is really a pile of rubbish and no one should waste their time reading it," he says.

Perhaps because it's opposite to everything he's ever said? What would you expect? "Oh yes, my entire life's work has been a fraud..."

This article is a long way from validating obesity as a strategy for long term health. I see that the author is a professor of law at the Univ. Colorado

The author of the article. The study was conducted by other researchers from the CDC and elsewhere.

and with a book about the Obesity *myth* no less.

Well. Walter Willet has a book. If that's a disqualification, why are you going around quoting him?

Afternote to ThyPeace: you don't "make" a link. The Fool software scans for anything that starts with an "http" or a "www" and ends with a valid domain register (like .com or .net or whatever) automatically turns it into a link, whether it's valid or not. Typing it in, or pasting it in is all you do, no special tricks required. Like this:

This article is a long way from validating obesity as a strategy for long term health. I see that the author is a professor of law at the Univ. Colorado

The author of the article. The study was conducted by other researchers from the CDC and elsewhere.

But that's the link you provided......so that's the link I commented on.

In the full published study, the authors themselves commented on the fact that it was impossible to tease out the "thin due to disease" folk that're the natural statistical confounders as a weakness in this study.

Additionally, what your commentator also didn't point out was that the study correlated mortality stats (whether you die or not) with BMI and not morbidity (how sick you are while you're still drawing breath)

Statistically BMIs of below 20 are strongly correlated with severe illness and death (think the cachexia of cancer, HIV/AIDS etc) On the other end of the spectrum, higher BMIs are strongly correlated with disablity and/or sickness that's often "managed" sort-of with a whole cornucopia of life extending medications....Lipitor, Glucophage, Norvasc (what I call *The Holy Trinity*) etc. etc.

Thanks, Goofy, but that's not quite what I meant. I couldn't figure out how to get a direct URL for the passage I wanted to share, as it was an individual Facebook posting. I'm sure it's possible -- I just don't know how.

VeeEnn, you might want to consider a different approach to articles you disagree with. You come off, though I don't think it's your intent, as being quite reactive -- as if you had not paused to take a breath before starting to reply.

The underlying research is significant in that it shows one specific thing to be true: People of average weight are generally the least likely to die. You're absolutely right that there's more to it than that, and our popular press is not very good at teasing out nuances. Still, that's why I quoted the passage from Michael Moore. It's not about whether you're going to die or not. That's fear. It's about how well you live. When we finally start measuring against that, we'll probably be a lot better off. In the meantime, though, our own emotions and the feel of our bodies gives us a really good start on whether we're living well or not.

[A] figure that the author quoted was males of 5'10" and a weight between 129-174 lbs having a higher "mortality risk" than the same height and a weight of 175-243lbs

A better title might have been, "BMI Is A Crude And Unreliable Predictor Of Fitness And Health Risk." As of this morning I am, as luck would have it, 5'10" and 178 pounds, putting me in the "overweight" category of BMI. The more sophisticated air displacement plethysmography places my body fat percentage at 13%, completely within the desirable range.

Obviously, health is more complicated than simply height and weight. Taking a crude proxy for being overweight, and than proving that the proxy doesn't correlate with ultimate outcome merely indicates that crude measurements can, indeed, be flawed. William Saletan critiques the article in more detain in Slatehttp://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_natur... .

It's not about whether you're going to die or not. That's fear. It's about how well you live.

In the context of this study, it's exactly about whether you're going to die or not. That's what mortality statistics tell you....and precisely the reason that folk such as Willett etc. are criticising it so roundly.

See, it's not folk like me who're responsible for the seemingly higher death rate among the lean folk (5'6" and about 130 lbs) or my daughter (6'1/2" and just over 140lbs) but rather people like my inlaws. Both of them were fairly comfortably padded for most of the time that I knew them but within a few weeks of their death (my F-I-L from oesophageal cancer and the M-I-L from a brain stem glioma)they'd shrunk to a BMI that was likely even lower on the scale than the 18 or so that's quoted in the study.

Conversely, at the other end of the spectrum, it's not the marty's of this world who make up the "healthier" fat group but rather the folk referred to in his link (I think #11) who're being insulated from the health related consequences of their obesity by virtue of aggressive medical intervention. These individuals don't show up on mortality stats regardless of what medication they're taking, whether they've had a heart attack or stroke or suffering the consequences of uncontrolled diabetes or if they're hoping to get on a wait list for a liver transplant 'cuz of cirrhosis secondary to obesity related fatty liver disease.

I'm not tremendously sure what impact Michael Moore's quotes could possibly have on a topic such as this. Well, yeah.....I guess if it comports with what you believe it'll fly but really... How *well* do most folk live at Michael Moore's size? How well does he live come to that.

While he might be perfectly happy with himself (and he deserves to be) whenever I've listened to him in interviews, he huffs and puffs like someone who has a hard time catching his breath. That wouldn't be a measure of *living well* for me.

How heavy do you reckon he is. A serious question, BTW since I'm eyeballing him and thinking to myself that it's a good job he didn't pitch up at my practice with toothache, when no-one else around had an available appointment..... because I wouldn't have been able to treat him. The dental chairs that I purchased at set-up had a weight limit of 300lbs. This didn't look to me like it'd be any sort of limiter back then. Yes, I know....that makes moi the idiot but I couldn't *upgrade* to something more robust since, although I'm manifestly not a short-azz runty sort of a woman, as dentists go I'm on the lower end of the height scale. I had to choose something to work with. Of course, there are plenty of dentists out there so no biggie.......but more and more of them are women who can't physically handle bigger sizes (yeppers.....us GRRRLZ talk about just this sort of stuff)

What about the practicalities of, say, fitting into an MRI scanner. Or the difficulties of wound healing after emergency surgery. Another practical example.....daughter was home for Christmas week together with her b-f (shoot me!!1!) A very nice boy, BTW......for anyone's daughter but mine. Right now, he weighs too well. Just under a month ago, he needed an emergency cholecystectomy. Laparoscopic, no less. His primary incision still hadn't healed properly by the time they left.

FWIW, my personal experience is that the capitalist system has actually enhanced losing weight and becoming fit. One of the things I like to do is coordinate clothes and workout outfits, and one of my big motivations to work out is the opportunity to wear new workout outfits to the gym. For Christmas, my kids got me new workout clothes, including socks that match the rest of the outfit, and I can't wait to get to the gym and wear them.

Hate to say this.....but I will anyway.....if U R investing enough time into reading Michael Moore's blogs and thinking about them in any meaningful way, U R not investing enough time into avoiding Michael Moore's obvious weight management issues.

...if U R investing enough time into reading Michael Moore's blogs and thinking about them in any meaningful way, U R not investing enough time into avoiding Michael Moore's obvious weight management issues.

You can judge my choices as you wish to, eyup. But as it happens, you're wrong on this item.

ThyPeace, recently learned that she has healed enough to do a regular yoga workout, albeit very cautiously and paying close attention to signs of discomfort. Couldn't bend so much for a long time after the herniated disc.

I'd just like to step in and point out here that the actual study was saying that people who were currently classified as "overweight" or at the first stage of obesity showed no specifically higher mortality rates. The study in no way suggested that the morbidly obese were any healthier than any of the rest of us.

The BMI is a flawed measurement system. DH is 6'1" and has been told that according to his BMI scale, he shouldn't weigh more than 165lbs. He has broad athletic shoulders and very narrow hips. I can't imagine what an emaciated specimen he'd be if his weight actually dropped below 190.

FWIW, he does a boot camp workout 4X a week as well as a cycling class once a week with weightlifting on the off days.

The idea that a few extra lbs doesn't hurt is supported by evidence in our own bodies. What we see sa our "perfect" weight quite often is an unrealistic body image. When returning to healthy eating levels after a period of serious dieting, most people regain some of the weight they lost. Part of that can be blamed on a return to unhealthy eating habits, but some of it can also be that your body has a natural set point that it tries to maintain. The pounds in between fall into what zoning often refers to as "vanity pounds".

I'm not tremendously sure what impact Michael Moore's quotes could possibly have on a topic such as this.

It's actually amazing how much misinformation he manages to pack into a relatively short blurb, although those who've had the misfortune to see one of his movies know that he's had a great deal of practice at promulgating misinformation.

1) Nihlism: But the truth is, exercise does not work, diets do not work, feeling crummy does not work. Nothing works. I love it - confusing "not easy" with "impossible." There is an abundance of data that folks who burn more calories than they ingest over a period of time, will, in fact, lose weight. Over history, when people were caught in one of mankind's too frequent famines, "underactive metabolisms" or "thyroid problems," or their "family's big bones" didn't keep people from losing weight.

2) Diet doesn't matter: I eat ice cream every friggin' day. I drink a regular Coke every single day. I put butter on things. Talk about self-fulfilling prophecies. A scoop of ice cream, a can of Coke and two pats of butter have roughly 600 calories. A reasonable weight loss diet for a full-sized man would be 1800 calories/day - I've done it. 600 calories is a third of that allotment, just in junk. How about a few ounces of low-fat frozen yogurt once a week, instead?

3) Overestimating the benefits of exercise: I also walk every day. Some days now, I walk twice. And now I've started to do some push-ups and lifting stuff. Thirty minutes of brisk walking burns no more than 300 calories, and that's a generous estimate - less than half of what he just added in junk. There's a saying on LBYM, "You can't out-earn bad spending habits." Similarly, you can't outexercise bad eating habits. I'm about where I want to be, but I watch everything I eat, and keep a close eye on both the scale and the mirror to fine-tune my eating.

4) The old "building muscle" canard: It's building muscle, and in doing so, has created an extra furnace to burn stuff and create energy. Memo - building muscle is REALLY hard - it doesn't just happen. I've kept detailed records from the BodPod at my gym, and over two and a half years of weight-lifting 4-5 times a week, I've gained a bit over ten pounds of muscle. I don't know how much Mr. Moore has built with 30 minute walks and the occasional push-up, but I'd be shocked if it were three pounds - hardly an "extra furnace."

It's actually amazing how much misinformation he manages to pack into a relatively short blurb, although those who've had the misfortune to see one of his movies know that he's had a great deal of practice at promulgating misinformation.

Could not possibly agree more! He's a pontificating buffoon who's also apparently a hypocrite--not only does he bash capitalism (based on small-f foolish nonsense which ignores how it actually works--you know, meaningless stuff like the profit incentive improving living standards wherever it's been allowed to freely function, providing better products for less money due to its competitive nature, etc.) while he uses that same capitalistic system to rake in millions. He accuses capitalism of functioning based on 'scaring' people into making purchases (what B-School did learn this at?) yet his movies are themselves fear-mongering. And yes, of course, he is the absolutely last person on the planet who should be dispensing fitness advice. I mean, c'mon--really

Or maybe it means it is better to be a little bit overweight than to be thin & haggard-looking.

What about neither of the above?

Granted, a BMI of about 18.5 would have me looking like a walking corpse (which is why I don't aim for that) However, in reality, "a little bit overweight" isn't really the weight parameters that were cited as being *healthier* in this cited review. Fat is what is supposedly advantageous .......according to all the science journalists who promoted the piece, that is.

I seriously doubt that 5 or so extra pounds is likely to make a major difference to anyone's health and well-being (at least, physical health and well-being) but that's not what the original review was trying to claim.

Agree--and that sums up the BMI concept, doesn't it? I want to get back to topic (michael moore aside--and if he's found a way to lose weight, good for him--and I sincerely mean that), but--and this is purely an anecdotal observation--I don't notice many heavyset really old people in the stores. All the very elderly I see are quite thin. I first noticed this when taking care of my 90+ year old grandmother--she was quite thin too. It just seems that the ones who make it into really, really old age are lower on the BMI scale.

2) Diet doesn't matter: I eat ice cream every friggin' day. I drink a regular Coke every single day. I put butter on things. Talk about self-fulfilling prophecies. A scoop of ice cream, a can of Coke and two pats of butter have roughly 600 calories. A reasonable weight loss diet for a full-sized man would be 1800 calories/day - I've done it. 600 calories is a third of that allotment, just in junk. How about a few ounces of low-fat frozen yogurt once a week, instead?

How about cutting the junk altogether, including the yogurt? For instance, if he were to cut out the icecream, cokes, and butter to save that 600 per day:

He'd save 219,000 calories over the course of a year.

Divide that by 3500 calories to the pound, and you have a net weight loss of:

62.571 pounds in a year.

Something so simple as cutting out the junk.

If he continued to walk or do other exercise while cutting out the junk, he might see an even bigger loss.

I don't notice many heavyset really old people in the stores. All the very elderly I see are quite thin. I first noticed this when taking care of my 90+ year old grandmother--she was quite thin too. It just seems that the ones who make it into really, really old age are lower on the BMI scale.

I think it's not so much that they aren't around, it's that they don't get around as easily as they used to, so we don't tend to see them.

Plus, as we age, we tend to lose sensitivity in our sense of taste and smell, so the really thin older folks are often the ones who simply cannot bring themselves to eat. My grandfather, who starved himself to death in a nursing home was one of those. He told me that he discovered as he got older that he could not really taste the food and that most food, once you remove the flavor, has a texture that is completely revolting.

My favorite aunt is 91, she's not thin, she has osteo-arthritis in her hips, knees and ankles and osteoporosis in her back. As a younger woman she was always active adn maintained a healthy weight, not really heavy, but also not really thin.

Over the Christmas break, we visited her in the assisted living resort she's moved into. I noticed dozens of older folks in the lobby and dining room. While there were only a few that would be considered really fat, most of them looked as though they could stand to lose at least 20 lbs or so. Not a one of them would be considered "really thin". But then again, this is Texas and being in the South, our older folks grew up on corn bread, bisquits and gravy, and chicken fried everything. It's not at all unusual for our older folks to make it into their 90s, but then again, we also have a lot of folks here who don't make it out of teir 50s. I chalk most of it up to genetics. You either have a family history of long life or you don't ;0)

Of course, once you hit octogenarian and above, it's harder to get out and about, and as a result you don't get "seen" quite so often. DH's grandmother made it to 96. She was about a far from a specimen of thin as you could get. She was a good 60+ lbs overweight and smoked like a chimney. Ironically, her poor health habits did not cause her death. She actually died following a fall in her home.

Ironically, his tiny little grandmother on his dad's side was a teetotaler who never smoked, yet she had colon cancer twice. She survived with treatment in her 50s, but died from it in her early 70s.

I think it's not so much that they aren't around, it's that they don't get around as easily as they used to, so we don't tend to see them.

Well, and they don't actually get around as much.

I have a father, 92, and a FIL, 89. FIL has the daughter do all the shopping; he rarely leaves the house anymore. My father lives in a retirement home (past two years) and assisted living (past 6 months) where meals are provided. He used to go to the store once in a while to stock up on root beer and candy bars, but he was hardly a regular shopper.

Before my mother died she had yogurt and Boost twice a day (in spite of our nagging), and now FIL has discovered Boost and we can hardly get actual food into him.

They don't care. Food has lost its taste, and sadly, its joy. My father is at the same weight he has been for 20 years, FIL has lost about 30 pounds, but won't change eating habits. Whaddya gonna do?

They don't care. Food has lost its taste, and sadly, its joy. My father is at the same weight he has been for 20 years, FIL has lost about 30 pounds, but won't change eating habits. Whaddya gonna do?

Not much you can do. DH's uncle once mentioned wistfully that he wished you could get all your nutrients and calories in a pill so you didn't ahve to go through the effort of chewing. He lived into his late 80s.

I may have mentioned this before, but my grandfather drank Ensure shakes while he was living in a nursing home shortly before he died. One afternoon, the nurse (thinking my grandfather was asleep) mentioned to my mom that the Ensure was the only thing keeping him alive. He drank 3 200 calorie cans a day. The next morning when they brought him his shake, he politely declined and died about two weeks later.

He was less than 110lbs at his death. He had maintained his college wrestling team weight his entire life up until the last 6 months, when he was put into care following Mom's heart attack. He told her he didn't want to eat the nursing home food and he stuck to that resolve right up to the end.